Jack the Bodiless

...It is???

Why do you imagine that the Bible is "authoritative, trustworthy, accurate and dependable"? Whenever the Bible starts talking about things beyond the limited knowledge of the primitives that wrote it, it manages to get just about everything wrong (flat-Earth cosmology, recent creation, the Flood, and so on). So, just WHAT is it "authoritative, trustworthy, accurate and dependable" about, exactly? And how would you know?

To avoid derailing THIS thread, I will again remind you of the existence of the thread Inerrantists: please demonstrate that ANY part of the Bible is "divinely inspired" . If there is ANYTHING unusually "authoritative, trustworthy, accurate and dependable" about the Bible, that would presumably qualify.

bfniii

some very good points were made in these posts, but they are not relevant because this isn't a court of law nor is it a competitive debate with rigid protocols. there is no judge or jury. this is an open discussion. anyone is free to claim whatever they want, no matter how ridiculous. the only burden is on each individual to believe whatever they are convinced by. since this is a forum founded on skepticism, skeptics should state why their beliefs are convincing. if you want to know what christians believe, go to church.

mata leao

why? because the Bible is different. there is POWER behind it.thats why we are here fighting so hard over it. Fascism, marxism, communism had power behind them to, but it was evil, (it) enslaved and degraded freedom, the Bible compels people to it like the fictional "ring" in Lord of the rings compels people to it.....except that the Bible is real......you do not shadow box endlessly with a non-existant God! there is a difference between Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler, between DR. Mengala and DR. Albert Schweitzer, between HUgh Heffner and Bill Gates. There is GOOD and there is EVIL. In every graduating medical school class there will be (statistically) 1% and 1% only who will dedicate their entire professional lives to sacrificial medical care for the poor, without non-subsistance compensation,....and according to BARNA, 98% of them will be Christians. THere is a difference. Athiests will probably never, ever be able to understand why there is such a differnce wihtout confronting the ultimate truth of the power of Jesus Christ. There HAS to be somehting differnt, something powerful, somthing real behind that reality.

Prester John

why?


edited:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?P...pic&TopicID=26
Looks like a reliable source to me...NOT
73.8% of statistics are made up - Spike Milligan

mata leao

so uh prester brother...tell us how you persoanlly have sacrificially helped feed the hungry, heal the sick and helped widows and orphans! and p.s BARNA is very accurate!

Amaleq13

It is refreshing to see such a bold admission of reliance upon special pleading. Good for you!!:thumbs:

Djugashvillain

No, there doesn't. And your ridiculous statistics have nothing to do with the veracity of the Bible. If you are going to use examples of Christians doing good works as a reason to accept the Bible as being the inspired word of God, then you open the flood-gates for all the bad things that have been done by Christians. They are many, and their very existence invalidates your argument.

Johnny Skeptic

Whether a forum is a skeptic forum or a Christian forum is completely irrelevant. This is a skeptic forum, but we are debating Jewish writings and assertions, not skeptic writings and assertions. It is WHAT is being debated that is most important, not WHERE is it being debated. If you wish, you can have a new web site created and we (you, me, and other Christians and sketpics) can have have our debates there. That way you will have your Christian forum. Or, we can debate the Tyre prophecy at an existing Christian forum. A link can be provided to readers at this forum. I am pretty sure that you will not accept my suggestions. Why, because I believe that you are not at all concerned with where these debates take place, but rather that you know that you are unable to successfully contend with some of the arguments that skeptics have posted. It is your duty as a Christian to defend the Bible at all venues. Either the Bible has credibility at all venues, or it does not have any credibility at any venue.

I am well aware what you are up to. In typical fashion you are baiting skeptics to try to reasonably disprove the Trye prophecy, when it is up to you to reasonably prove it. You and the Bible are analogous to plaintiffs in lawsuits. Lawsuits begin with initial, primary assertions that are made by plaintiffs. The Bible is full of initial, primary assertions from cover to cover, many of which are completely unverifable, not the least of which are the claims that the God of the Bible, and by implication no other God, created the heavens and the earth, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he was born of a virgin, that he never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. As an agnostic, I have never suggested how the universe got here, but you would obviously suggest that the God of the Bible created it. Many skeptics attempt to disprove the Tyre prophecy, but that is not what I am trying to do. You hold the Tyre prophecy to be true, but I do not hold the Tyre prophecy to be untrue. As I have told you on a number of occasions, my current position is that both sides have equally plausible arguments.

Surely you must be aware that many readers at various Christian and skeptic forums are part of the undecided crowd, not skeptics, and a good percentage of them are reluctant to make posts. What they want to know is why you believe that the Tyre prophecy was written before the events, why you believe that it was divinely inspired, and why you believe that the version of the prophecy that we have today is the same as the original version.

Is it your position that the Tyre prophecy (I mean the dating of the prophecy and the other issues that I mentioned) can stand on its own merit, or that it only has merit when it is associated with other claims in the Bible that you believe are easier to defend? A lot of Christians choose the latter, but following that same line of reasoning juries would always believe the testimonies of witnesses who have never been caught telling lies.

Jack the Bodiless

So, beliefs don't have to be supported in debate, and if they're "ridiculous", that's no problem.

And yet, in the next sentence:
...Why? You just said that beliefs don't require support!
I already know what Christians believe: indeed, they believe many different things, depending on their denomination or personal preference. I also know that many of those beliefs are false.

Jack the Bodiless

...Welcome back! I see that your defeat in the previous discussion hasn't dampened your enthusiasm.

That's a very curious argument you have there.

1. Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. Both Christians, and both had some pretty obnoxious habits. The big difference is... ?

2. Mengele and Schweitzer. OK, I can agree that the first is "evil" and the second is "good", but I don't know Mengele's religious beliefs. However, he was famous for his actions in the Christian-inspired and Christian-implemented Holocaust.

3. Hugh Hefner and Bill Gates: if you object to Hefner's morality, are you saying that the atheist Gates is the "good guy"? (BTW, he's also donated more to charity than any Christian who ever lived).

Your talent for shooting yourself in the foot is certainly entertaining. I hope you stick around!